Mitt Romney and his Views on Marriage
Today I was
pointed
to a
Video
of Mitt Romney on the Charlie Rose show. It was primarily referenced
about a segment about sleep, however Mitt Romney came first. At
first, I thought I would just watch it since I really didn’t know much
about him (other than the Mormon and the Olympic thing). The first
topic he covered was that about marriage. That set me off in a rage
so I couldn’t watch the rest.
He tried to put the issue as only a question about how children were
raised. He said that "the primary societal motivation for marriage
relates to the development and nurturing of children". This is
incorrect. The primary societal motivation for marriage is either
religious or to gain rights and privileges as provided by the
government. Rights and privileges like Tax filing status, Social
Security benefits, Hospital visitation, Health insurance, Estate
taxes, Retirement savings, Family leave, Immigration rights,
etc.
Since his very first premise is wrong, everything that follows in
wrong as well. Also his next idea that children can only be raised
well by a male and a female parent is ridiculous. The sex of the
parents is not near as important as the quality of the parents.
Research studies have consistently shown that children raised by gay
and lesbian parents do just as well on all conventional measures of
child development, such as academic achievement, psychological
well-being and social abilities, as children raised by heterosexual
parents.
After having said all that, Gay Marriage comes down to one thing.
Unless all rights, privileges, and distinctions are removed from the
institution of marriage, denying any group of people the ability to
marry is discrimination, period.
Others like our president, have said they are trying to protect the
sanctity of marriage. Unfortunately marriage is not an institution in
religion only. It is a legal institution. If marriage was an idea in
religion only, we should protect religious freedom and allow any
religion to discriminate as they wish. However, since marriage is a
legal institution it must be free from any discrimination and be
protected from the religious zealots.
Posted: June 26th, 2006.
Tags: Opinion
Comments
Comment from Doran Barton
Time June 26, 2006 at 5:41 pm
I agree with Romney about the societal motivations for marriage to an extent. I believe the institution of marriage is all about vows to practice responsible sexual behavior and loyalty to one’s family unit (e.g. caring and providing for children, etc.) These are things most gay people simply don’t do. That’s why the divorce lawyers are drooling over the prospect of gay marriage!
I disagree with Romney’s assertion, if he actually did say this, that children can only be raised by a male and female parent. I believe that is clearly the IDEAL environment for any child, generally speaking, but a home with loving gay parents or a loving single parents is certainly a better alternative to being bounced between foster homes.
The institution of marriage is a holy thing and forget about the religious conotations of that. To defile this institution by allowing gays to participate would ruin our society. Again, I’m not talking about religious ideology here. I’m talking about common sense behavioral science and biology!
Comment from Jason Bunting
Time June 26, 2006 at 11:14 pm
“Unfortunately marriage is not an institution in religion only. It is a legal institution. If marriage was an idea in religion only, we should protect religious freedom and allow any religion to discriminate as they wish.”
Oh, but it was a religious institution long before a legal one. So, whenever the law decides to formally ‘legalize’ a religious institution, we have to then strip it of its original meaning? Sorry, this issue is not that simple.
Comment from User
Time June 27, 2006 at 2:29 pm
I’ve heard that many of the studies showing that children of gay parents turn out well have been bunk.
My father-in-law conducted many studies during his PhD on the topic, and his data indicated that one single factor contributed most to a child’s success: The presence of the biological father. This one factor outweight financial status, education, race, and any other factor. The biological father just had to be present. He didn’t even have to be a particularly “good” father. He just had to be there. That’s something lesbian couples cannot provide, and something that gay couples almost cannot provide.
Comment from AN0NYM0US
Time October 15, 2006 at 9:47 pm
I can only speak for myself and my background. Most of my life I was raised only by my biological mother. My biological father didn’t stick around after I was born. If I had the choice to control that part of my life, I’m sure I would have appreciated a stable and reliable father to rear me alongside my mother. On the bright side, I’m glad I wasn’t stuck with an drunkard or abusive father.
Shouldn’t we be asking those that were raised by these families how they feel? I’d be sure there would be an unignorable stigma with anyone who associated with children of gay/lesbian parents.
Comment from Luke
Time June 26, 2006 at 2:50 pm
He has got my vote!